Here is the full quote in context from the program Warren Buffett and Bill Gates: Keeping America Great.

"Well, he's done a fantastic job," Gates said. "Apple is in a bit of a different business where they make hardware and software together. But when Steve was coming back to Apple, which was actually through an acquisition of NeXT that he ran, Apple was in very tough shape. In fact, most likely it wasn't going to survive."

He continued: "And he brought in a team, he brought in inspiration about great products and design that's made Apple back into being an incredible force in doing good things. And it's great to have competitors like that. We write software for Apple, Microsoft does. They compete with Apple. But he, of all the leaders in the industry that I've worked with, he showed more inspiration and he saved the company."

Awww...how touching. [AppleInsider]

Hey, why save up for the Apple Tablet or Microsoft Courier when you can have eviGroup's Pad? It's kinda chunky, costs over $500 and runs, atop Windows 7, an artificial-intelligence man-lady widget known as Seline10. Don't be afraid that the only pictures of this sucker are renderings, or that it's probably not even going to sell in the USA. Just know that no matter what happens, it's bound to suddenly eclipse both—not to mention all other—tablets, in terms of sales and buzz. On second thought, maybe we'll just forget about this and keep waiting for the real McCoys. [Engadget]

Jim Goldman, a newscaster more famous in the bloggyverse for mistakes and total BS than he is for any act of conscious journalism, made Microsoft's stock take a momentary plummet when he read a statement from their quarterly report inaccurately. Surely he wasn't doing this to turn some short-happy day trader into Rico Suave, but it was a clear misinterpretation by either him or someone on his team. Did he admit he or his network made a mistake? Nope. Did they issue a correction, as most or all of us who have worked in any form of journalism have had to do from time to time? Nope. He instead made a "clarification," one that righted the stock to the chagrin of said would-be Sr. Suave.

I don't care, honestly, if someone makes a mistake on live TV, and it certainly wasn't worth posting as "news" on Giz. I am just sick and tired of people thinking there's something unmanly about saying you're sorry for effing up. I had my own run-in with that attitude last week, and I'll be honest, you people got it all wrong: The act of apologizing for a mistake shows you've got nothing to hide downtown, if you know what I mean. On that note, I'm sorry for climbing on my soap box. [Silicon Alley Insider]

One of the hottest non-news items of the day was Verizon's CEO, Ivan Seidenberg, saying how much he'd like a bite of the Apple:

Obviously we would be interested if they thought it would make sense for them to have us as a partner. And so we will leave it with them on that score….We want to broaden the base of choice for customers, and hopefully along the way, Apple, as well as others, will decide to jump on the bandwagon.

While this is obvious and doesn't change a thing, it was probably pretty upsetting to Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam in the week or so following his launch of the iDon't anti-iPhone campaign. [AllThingsD; original image from CNet]

We all knew that Microsoft borrowed Apple Store talent in order to get its own high-end retail initiative off the ground, but Engadget pointed out a delightful little detail—too small for its own post—that furthers the conspiracy. A sales manager, featured in the background of a video with Bono and Oprah from back when Product RED iPods launched in July 2007, suddenly reappears a few days ago handing out Zunes at the Scottsdale store opening. Hey, at least they're Zune HDs. [Engadget]

Apple's stock had tanked in January, falling as low as $78.20, when Jobs said he had a hormone imbalance and the company announced that its founder would be taking a six-month medical leave. It has since made a choppy comeback as concerns about his health persist.

Thing is, as John Gruber accurately notes with a simple Google Finance chart, that isn't entirely true.

To say this kind of odd Apple reporting from CNBC is "something new" would also be, of course, not entirely true. [CNBC via Daring Fireball via BBG]

According to CNBC's Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, PCs need the following things to "perform as well as a Mac": $50 a year for anti-virus software, $104 multimedia software, $100 music software, $140 "Photoshop—you get that with Apple" and $129 for a Geek Squad visit. Over $600 worth of extra stuff. Oh, and Macs get 4x the battery life, have faster processors and a higher resolution screen.

Um. What? Last time I checked, you can get pretty decent antivirus software for free, my MacBook Pro didn't come with Photoshop, and iTunes was free on OS X and Windows. For multimedia, you've got Windows Media Center, which is also pretty free. And Picasa—hey, it's free too—isn't a bad alternative to iPhoto. Okay, you might have to spend money on video editing software, since MovieMaker ain't so hot. But you know what? A lot of the stuff MobileMe charges you $100 a year to get, Windows Live provides for free, like SkyDrive's 25GB of storage. I would also like to meet this mythical Mac with an all-day battery, since we sure haven't seen it.

Look, there are some valid reasons to pick a Mac over a PC, just like there are valid reasons to pick a PC over a Mac. But you shouldn't smear blatant horseshit all over them, especially when it's already confusing enough for regular people, your audience, Mr. CNBC Silicon Valley Bureau Chief.

Update: No wonder the figures Goldman tosses out look so familiar. Reader Rob points out they're pulled straight out of this piece by Arik Hesseldahl in BusinessWeek. Did I just miss the credit to BusinessWeek or Hesseldahl? [CNBC - Thanks Jason and Rob!]

Cramer listens, and doesn't defend himself too much, which is admirable. Watching this is especially interesting for me because a few weeks ago, we took some shots (counterpunches, really) against CNBC Silicon Valley Bureau chief Jim Goldman's reporting. Maybe it's not them. But maybe it's the network and TV news in general. [Gawker, Jon Stewart is My Hero]

When Apple announced that Steve Jobs was skipping Apple's final Macworld keynote on Dec. 16, CNBC's Jim Goldman assured everyone that it was "politics, not pancreas" behind his absence, according to "sources inside the company." They told him "that if Jobs for some reason was unable to perform any of his responsibilities as CEO because of health reasons, which would include the Macworld keynote" that "the board would let me know." His sources repeated the info two weeks later in response to word that Jobs' health was in fact rapidly declining. Jim declared: "Until Apple says something different, or I get my hands on something tangible and trustworthy, I'm taking the company at its word."

Goldman, you see, is too good for rumors: "Do I traffic in rumors to fill the void the company has created by not choosing to be more forthcoming about Jobs' health? Absolutely not."

Today, in response to the news that Jobs' health problems are more "complex" than he suspected and will be taking a "medical leave of absence" until June, Goldman said on CNBC that he's actually known for more than a week that Steve Jobs' health issues were more complicated than Jobs and Apple initially revealed a week ago.

His information from a pair of sources that "Steve Jobs is in a state of denial about his health circumstances as we speak," is by definition a rumor, even if it spills out of the mouth of someone who says he doesn't "traffic in rumors."

If his information supercedes mere rumor, why didn't he report it before, the same week he lauded Apple and Jobs for going "way beyond the call today with a personal note and a corresponding letter from Apple's board that should finally put these rumors to bed"? His information—apparently "tangible and trustworthy" enough to relay on air today—directly contradicts what Apple, Jobs and even Goldman himself told us earlier.

But for that matter, how do we know his new sources are any more reliable than his past ones? As it stands, it looks like he stopped listening to Smurfs and started listening to Burt & Ernie. Personally, I'm more of a Ninja Turtle guy, so when they give you a call, Jim, be sure to let us know. I trust them.

And, why is it so hard to apologize for being wrong?

UPDATE: Jim's written up his take on today's news. He's very skeptical of believing any company news now, and it contradicts the statements he made on air, such as the ones where he states he believes in what the company and his sources say, unless told otherwise. He's literally not willing to bet that Jobs will come back in June.

Thanks Ray!